In its decision of 31 October 2025 (BS 2025 37), the High Court of the Canton of Zug had to rule on a case concerning the sealing of a mobile phone that had been seized during a house search. In the course of the search, a seizure record was drawn up. The complainant refused to sign the seizure record. Nevertheless, in relation to the mobile phone, the box “No” was ticked under the heading “Sealing”. The public prosecutor’s office proceeded to examine the device without filing an application for unsealing. The affected party lodged a complaint with the High Court of the Canton of Zug. The High Court held that there had been no valid waiver of the right to sealing and declared the mobile phone to be sealed with retroactive effect. An examination of the device should therefore not have taken place. However, the court rejected the request for the return of the device, ordered the procedural costs to be borne equally by the parties, and awarded the complainant a reduced compensation.
This decision of the High Court is to be welcomed, particularly since, in the absence of a signed sealing record, there is a priori no valid waiver of the right to sealing. At the same time, the case illustrates that a house search constitutes an exceptional situation for most individuals. In cases of doubt, affected persons are well advised to request sealing as a precautionary measure and subsequently, together with a criminal defence lawyer, to assess whether the sealing should be maintained. It should be noted that the statutory time limit of three days from the seizure for substantiating the sealing request pursuant to Art. 248 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code requires very prompt action.
High Court of the Canton of Zug, decision of 31 October 2025
(published on 5 January 2026)